Prof Ksanfomaliti, from the Moscow-based Space Research Institute, analysed photographs taken by a Soviet probe that landed on the planet’s surface.
The 79 year-old claimed the pictures, taken by the probe Venus-13 in 1982, show a giant scorpion-styled insect that he claimed proved to life on the scorching second-closest planet to the sun.
But the views of the member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, published in Solar System Research, have been cast into doubt.
Experts say the features described as a disc and a scorpion appear to change locations from one photo to the next.
Prof Ksanfomaliti said the images show a scorpion shaped body, a disc and a “black flap” which apparently move as the probe’s camera records the scene.
Related Articles
They all “emerge, fluctuate and disappear” explained Prof Ksanfomaliti.
“What if we forget about the current theories about the non-existence of life on Venus, let’s boldly suggest that the objects’ morphological features would allow us to say that they are living,” he tells the magazine.
No records have previously been found of life on Venus, which has a surface temperature of 464C and gravity 0.9 times more powerful than Earth’s.
But Jonathon Hill, a research technician and mission planner at the Mars Space Flight Facility at Arizona State University, cast doubt on the claims.
The man who processes many of the images taken during NASA’s Mars missions, said the higher-resolution versions of the Venera 13 images show that the crablike object is actually a mechanical component, not a living creature.
The same object shows up in a photograph taken by an identical landing probe, Venera 14, which landed nearby on Venus.
That’s rather confusing - are they talking about Venus or Mars? I know the probe is called Venus but later in the article they mention several times about ‘life on Venus’.
“What if we forget about the current theories about the non-existence of life on Venus, let’s boldly suggest that the objects’ morphological features would allow us to say that they are living,” he tells the magazine.
Current theories about the non-existence of life on Venus? I didn’t know there WERE any theories about the non-existence of life on Venus.
Wouldn’t the discussion among scientists go something like this:
Scientist #1 : Are any of you guys & gals aware of any evidence to suggest there’s life on Venus?
Group of other scientists : “Nope” “Not me” “None here” “Me either” “Me too” ..etc etc etc
So now the simple observation there’s currently no evidence to suggest something will be considered a theory??
The ‘Venus critters’ are supposed to be on the rocky surface and are not visible in the wide field overview picture posted here, except for the bright half-moon shaped thing which is the reported “disc” or “crab”. I have seen details of the other two supposed life-forms in other news reports, and it is utterly unconvincing, certainly if you know the slow-scan technique this probe’s camera used. They look like compression artifacts in the image and are apparently indeed not present on the original imagery.
The “disc” (the half-moon shaped object on the picture), has already been identified as being the jettisoned lens cover of the probe itself.
“What if we forget about the current theories about the non-existence of life on Venus, let’s boldly suggest that the objects’ morphological features would allow us to say that they are living,” he tells the magazine.
Current theories about the non-existence of life on Venus? I didn’t know there WERE any theories about the non-existence of life on Venus.
Wouldn’t the discussion among scientists go something like this:
Scientist #1 : Are any of you guys & gals aware of any evidence to suggest there’s life on Venus?
Group of other scientists : “Nope” “Not me” “None here” “Me either” “Me too” ..etc etc etc
So now the simple observation there’s currently no evidence to suggest something will be considered a theory??
Well, to be fair, science-ese would say words to the effect of ‘given what we know about conditions on the planet, the chance of there being life on Venus is very, very remote, and almost certainly no life as we would know it’. Unless they have sufficient sample size to go to a few sigmas, then you’re not gonna get a 100% yes/no out of them.
My personal favorite term for such things is describing something as having a ‘non-zero’ probabilty. This means it’s an insanely low number that might as well be zero, but the math still shows *something* there. Also known as ‘It’s never going to happen, not ever… but it *might*.’
Well, to be fair, science-ese would say words to the effect of ‘given what we know about conditions on the planet, the chance of there being life on Venus is very, very remote, and almost certainly no life as we would know it’. Unless they have sufficient sample size to go to a few sigmas, then you’re not gonna get a 100% yes/no out of them.
My personal favorite term for such things is describing something as having a ‘non-zero’ probabilty. This means it’s an insanely low number that might as well be zero, but the math still shows *something* there. Also known as ‘It’s never going to happen, not ever… but it *might*.’
True, but my point was I don’t think any of the hypothetical scientists we’re talkking about would call it a theory, or would consider writing it up & submitting it ( as their “Theory That There is No Life on Venus” ) for peer review.
Yeah, sorry, not convinced. Graphic artifacts do not equate to life forms, no matter how hard you squint. A bit of dust or scratch on the lens, or even changing lighting conditions can make something appear to be ‘moving’, especially when you have a low-resolution, blurry photo.
Of course,t here’s no argument that will convince True Believers. Any footage from another probe would be ‘faked’, any humans sent there would be ‘part of a conspiracy’, and even if we sent them there in perso, they’d still resolutely cling to the notion that there is life on Venus.
... in other news, I’d like to announce the opening of my Venus-based UFOlogist/conspiracy theorist rehabilitation facility! Now offering a two-for-one deal on all Apollo Denialists!
And I suppose there is no possibility that a wind could have caused these anomalies? Especially when they state in the article that the landing of the probe “destroyed the soil to a depth of about 4.5 cm.” That would seem to leave a lot of loose material in the immedicate area that would be subject to displacement if there were any sort of atmospheric movement or shifting soil due to earth tremors.
